Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387556

Postby XFool » February 17th, 2021, 7:28 pm

1nvest wrote:For the 0.15%/whatever percentage of lives saved from everyone enduring extreme loss of rights its obviously a benefit for them at a considerable cost to others.

Equally extreme/restrictive laws could be instated to stop everyone driving so air quality might be improved and save 0.06% of lives, but again at considerable cost.

Restrictions have associated costs, where more lives might be destroyed/lost than the numbers being saved. Personally I am aware of a individual in their 20's who lost her life as a result of lockdown, whereas my 89 year old mother who contracted Covid whilst in hospital for a fractured hip survived through that without even a snivel. A year+ (so far) lost in isolation/lockdown for a 89 year old is a considerable cost, potentially a remaining lifetime lost to a misery of imprisonment over that of living remainder of life to the fullest.

And no doubt that 20 year old is completely typical of the entire population of all 20 year olds?
Just as your 89 year old mother with the fractured hip and COVID, survived "without even a snivel", is completely typical of all 89 year olds with COVID.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387570

Postby servodude » February 17th, 2021, 8:57 pm

XFool wrote:
1nvest wrote:For the 0.15%/whatever percentage of lives saved from everyone enduring extreme loss of rights its obviously a benefit for them at a considerable cost to others.

Equally extreme/restrictive laws could be instated to stop everyone driving so air quality might be improved and save 0.06% of lives, but again at considerable cost.

Restrictions have associated costs, where more lives might be destroyed/lost than the numbers being saved. Personally I am aware of a individual in their 20's who lost her life as a result of lockdown, whereas my 89 year old mother who contracted Covid whilst in hospital for a fractured hip survived through that without even a snivel. A year+ (so far) lost in isolation/lockdown for a 89 year old is a considerable cost, potentially a remaining lifetime lost to a misery of imprisonment over that of living remainder of life to the fullest.

And no doubt that 20 year old is completely typical of the entire population of all 20 year olds?
Just as your 89 year old mother with the fractured hip and COVID, survived "without even a snivel", is completely typical of all 89 year olds with COVID.


This is probably drifting away from the "numbers and statistics" aspect of this thread also: so I'll try and move it in that direction a bit

so if one is going to pretend to approach this from a cost/benefit point of view can we please try and do it properly

It's clear from the "whatever percentage of lives saved" that it's not clear what that is
- but it's more than the 0.15% who weren't; for the UK demographic you could expect an infection fatality rate (given an even spread of cases) in the 1.2- 1.3% range

it's also expected that a great deal more indirect deaths would have occurred if the NHS ( and/or equivalents) had been even more stretched; the people they "save" on any given day being unable to be treated because they have not the resources left - count those "failed" as a cost?

we've also now got a situation where because the virus has been allowed to spread sufficiently it has mutated in ways to make it more contagious, apparently more deadly and in some cases able to evade antibodies - costs or benefits?

- sd

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387571

Postby Lootman » February 17th, 2021, 9:08 pm

servodude wrote:it's also expected that a great deal more indirect deaths would have occurred if the NHS ( and/or equivalents) had been even more stretched; the people they "save" on any given day being unable to be treated because they have not the resources left - count those "failed" as a cost?

No, you cannot pin those other deaths on the virus itself but rather on our reaction to it.

So yes, if we choose to prioritise treating Covid victims over other victims then Covid deaths will be flattered and non-Covid deaths will be exaggerated. Maybe that is a wash; maybe it isn't. The "excess deaths" statistic is supposed to be the fair way of handling that, although that takes no account of the demographics of who we decide to save. If we are saving the life of a 90 year old Covid patient at the expense of a 30 year old suffering from something else, then I suspect many would take the view that is poor decision making.

But of course even that assumes that patient stats are the only factor that matters, and only a scientist with a narrow focus would make such a claim.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387575

Postby servodude » February 17th, 2021, 9:23 pm

Lootman wrote:
servodude wrote:it's also expected that a great deal more indirect deaths would have occurred if the NHS ( and/or equivalents) had been even more stretched; the people they "save" on any given day being unable to be treated because they have not the resources left - count those "failed" as a cost?

No, you cannot pin those other deaths on the virus itself but rather on our reaction to it.

So yes, if we choose to prioritise treating Covid victims over other victims then Covid deaths will be flattered and non-Covid deaths will be exaggerated. Maybe that is a wash; maybe it isn't. The "excess deaths" statistic is supposed to be the fair way of handling that, although that takes no account of the demographics of who we decide to save. If we are saving the life of a 90 year old Covid patient at the expense of a 30 year old suffering from something else, then I suspect many would take the view that is poor decision making.

But of course even that assumes that patient stats are the only factor that matters, and only a scientist with a narrow focus would make such a claim.


if a hospital is full it's full

have a look for the demographic spread of those in ICU in the UK ;)
- it is much busier than it should be - and not with the elderly (they don't make it through triage)

- sd

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6472
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 939 times
Been thanked: 2261 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387591

Postby Nimrod103 » February 17th, 2021, 10:39 pm

servodude wrote:have a look for the demographic spread of those in ICU in the UK ;)
- it is much busier than it should be - and not with the elderly (they don't make it through triage)

- sd


Do you have a graph we could inspect?

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387595

Postby servodude » February 17th, 2021, 11:07 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
servodude wrote:have a look for the demographic spread of those in ICU in the UK ;)
- it is much busier than it should be - and not with the elderly (they don't make it through triage)

- sd


Do you have a graph we could inspect?


Try here:
https://theconversation.com/how-will-vaccines-affect-the-length-of-englands-lockdown-152714

First, patients in intensive care with COVID-19 have a median age of just 62; fewer than a third of these patients are over 70 years of age.

Second, intensive care patients are also in hospital for much longer on average, about twice as long as non-ICU COVID-19 patients. This means it will take longer for any decline in admissions stemming from vaccination to reduce pressure on patient numbers in intensive care units.


Hopefully the image below is allowed from that link
Image

There's also this from the BBC (but it's a "rate" per volume of case - so needs viewed through that)

Image
from
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55586994


If you follow the "More or Less" podcast there was a bit of discussion on this with respect to the effect of vaccines recently
here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rccm at about 5 minutes in
- from that we might expect the ICU occupancy to fall more slowly than the other figures due to how triaged it is; they quoted 25% of ICU admissions are over 70 years old (25% are under 52)
- this also means that we can expect the vaccine programme to have little effect on these numbers for some time

-sd

daveh
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2191
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:06 am
Has thanked: 409 times
Been thanked: 807 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387768

Postby daveh » February 18th, 2021, 4:06 pm

So what's happening in East Ayrshire (+94.4%); West Dunbartonshire (+25%) and Clackmannanshire (+9.4%)? All three have the highest rates in Scotland and rates are still increasing (7day increase in rates shown in brackets). The rest of the Scottish local authority areas (except Orkney) are showing declining rates of infection.

Data from
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#387775

Postby swill453 » February 18th, 2021, 4:44 pm

daveh wrote:So what's happening in East Ayrshire (+94.4%);

Looking at the local data (https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotlan ... cker/local and scroll down to "Cases by Intermediate Zone") it looks like just about all of them are in "Kilmarnock South Central and Caprington". So could be a localised outbreak in a care home, prison, factory or similar.

(Actually just googled, and it's an outbreak in Kilmarnock prison https://news.stv.tv/west-central/hundre ... n-outbreak)

(Addiewell prison recently bumped up the West Lothian numbers too)

Scott.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1147 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#388888

Postby jfgw » February 22nd, 2021, 7:23 pm

All data relate to England.

Things still progressing as they were, London dropping faster and Midlands staying flatter.

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Hospital bed occupancy falling fairly evenly,

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

MV bed occupancy falling too,

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Cases (as defined by the government, i.e., people testing positive for the first time),

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Deaths follow similar curves except for magnitude,

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/


The effect of vaccinations is not obviously showing on the age graphs yet. The Scottish study compares those who have had the vaccine with those who haven't so will show the effect of the vaccines much better.


Julian F. G. W.

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1074 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#388901

Postby zico » February 22nd, 2021, 7:54 pm

This is the SAGE summary of modelling scenarios. Apparently Scenario 3 is the closest to the one selected by the Government today.
The vaccinated estimates of reduction of hospitalisation/death risks may be pessimistic, given today's estimates from Scotland.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ctions.pdf

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1147 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#393445

Postby jfgw » March 7th, 2021, 7:36 pm

Death rates within 28 days of a first positive test are falling more quickly for older people,
Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

All age ranges shown peaked between 17/1/2021 and 19/1/2021.

Julian F. G. W.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1147 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#393465

Postby jfgw » March 7th, 2021, 9:57 pm

I have tried to show how the death rates for different age groups have changed with respect to each other. My purpose was to see if the effects of vaccinations were evident.

I have used the "Heatmap" rolling 7 day rate data for England provided on the UK government website (I could have use the "number of deaths"). (These data are not provided for the UK as a whole.) The lower age groups have very few deaths and produce a lumpy chart.
I have scaled the death rates so that they all peak at the same level (as per my previous graph). I have then charted these as percentages of all deaths in the age groups 40 and over.

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

From the same source, I have charted the number of deaths by age range.

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/


Julian F. G. W.

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#393582

Postby tjh290633 » March 8th, 2021, 11:38 am

Are those deaths from all causes?

It looks a little odd, because there should be light blue above the yellow band, but a maroon band intervenes. Perhaps it is my eyesight.

TJH

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1147 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#393602

Postby jfgw » March 8th, 2021, 12:27 pm

tjh290633 wrote:Are those deaths from all causes?


Sorry I didn't make it clear. It is deaths within 28 days of a first positive test for England.

tjh290633 wrote:It looks a little odd, because there should be light blue above the yellow band, but a maroon band intervenes. Perhaps it is my eyesight.


I am absolutely flattered to know that someone is looking at my graph so closely! There was indeed an error in my spreadsheet and I post the corrected chart below. If you download the data for the heatmap here, https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=England, you will see that the data are not in the correct order. The ranges are 00_04, 10_14, 15_19 ... 55_59, 05_09, 60_64 ... . An error occurred when I re-ordered the data.

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/


Julian F. G. W.

funduffer
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1328
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 831 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#393665

Postby funduffer » March 8th, 2021, 3:56 pm

Good charts.

If you look at the over 70’s, they accounted for roughly 85% of deaths in December, but from the beginning of February until now, this has gradually reduced to about 70% of deaths.

I think that must be the vaccine effect kicking in.

I think I would expect to see that trend continuing as fewer over 70s get infected and for those that do contract the virus, fewer become seriously ill, and fewer still succumb.

It will probably the 40 and 50 year olds that take up a larger % of deaths in the next few months, although overall numbers should of course decline.

FD

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1147 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#394422

Postby jfgw » March 10th, 2021, 9:19 pm

This is a longer term comparison between the death rates of different age groups. I do not know how reliable the early data are and I would suggest caution in drawing conclusions from these.

The data appear somewhat erratic during the period when the pubs were open :!:

I have superimposed a total deaths graph (black line) for reference.

I think that the increasing proportion of deaths in under 70s is very significant as it suggests a disproportionate reduction of deaths in older age groups, very likely due to vaccinations.

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/


Julian F. G. W.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#394436

Postby servodude » March 10th, 2021, 10:11 pm

jfgw wrote:I have superimposed a total deaths graph (black line) for reference.


Props for a very clear representation of what is a solid amount of data
- and extra kudos for the "Adventure Time" vibe that it's giving me

- sd

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1147 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#394732

Postby jfgw » March 11th, 2021, 7:34 pm

I have had a similar look at new cases, this time per capita. I find this chart somewhat intriguing and would be interested in your comments regarding the events that have shaped it. The chart is based upon the heatmap 7 day rolling rate data, https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England and I have superimposed a graph of the number of new cases.

Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/


Julian F. G. W.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#394772

Postby servodude » March 11th, 2021, 10:44 pm

jfgw wrote:I have had a similar look at new cases, this time per capita. I find this chart somewhat intriguing and would be interested in your comments regarding the events that have shaped it. The chart is based upon the heatmap 7 day rolling rate data, https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England and I have superimposed a graph of the number of new cases.



If I had to try and infer anything from the most recent data there
- school age kids mixing (EDIT: or choosing to get tested?) before going back (brackets for 5- 19 look a bit wider - might also explain change in fall gradient)
- vaccine having an impact in the 90+ bracket
- everything else filling in the space between these two parts
- it would make a trippy T-shirt

- sd

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Coronavirus - Numbers and Statistics

#394948

Postby scotia » March 12th, 2021, 2:51 pm

jfgw wrote:I have had a similar look at new cases, this time per capita. I find this chart somewhat intriguing and would be interested in your comments regarding the events that have shaped it.
Julian F. G. W.

My first thoughts:-
In the initial wave of infections (around April 2020), there was a very limited testing capability, so probably only the very sick were tested - and that would be mainly the very elderly cohort - hence their broad bands. But as the volume of testing grew, this effect lessened. Then in the Autumn, the younger age group were sent off to halls of residence in Universities, and that produced a corresponding bulge in their cases.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests